In the latest season of The Celebrity Traitors, Jonathan Ross has employed a strikingly bold strategy that has piqued the interest of psychologists and game theorists alike. His recent decision to eliminate actress Ruth Codd, who had accused him of being a traitor, raises questions about the underlying psychology and mathematical principles at play in this reality competition.
Experts in game theory, a field dedicated to studying strategic decision-making, suggest that Ross”s actions are far from reckless. They describe his move as an example of what is known as “multi-level reasoning,” with some referring to it as a “suicide bluff.” “At first glance, Jonathan”s tactic appears foolhardy,” noted Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams, an economist at Nottingham Business School. “However, when considering its impact on how others perceive him, it could be a strategically sound choice.” The success of his approach hinges on how deeply the other contestants think about the situation.
For those unfamiliar with the show, contestants are placed in a Scottish castle where they engage in tasks to accumulate a prize pot. A select few, designated as traitors, secretly decide each night who to eliminate in dramatic “murders.” The remaining contestants, referred to as the faithful, must deduce who the traitors are during daily meetings to vote out the suspected individuals.
Dr. Clea Wright, a forensic psychologist at the University of Chester, mentioned that educational institutions are using clips from The Traitors to illustrate various psychological theories. “This show serves as a real-time experiment for game theory,” said Professor Martin Gairing, a computer scientist from the University of Liverpool. “Every choice made involves elements of strategy, deception, and reputation management.”
In a pivotal moment during episode three, Ross successfully advocated for the elimination of Ruth Codd, despite her earlier accusations against him. He argued to his fellow traitors, “I would be an idiot to kill Ruth. If I were a traitor, I wouldn”t have done this.” His tactic has sparked discussions not only among contestants but also within academic circles, revealing its relevance to various fields such as economics and military strategy.
Dr. Stephen Nei from the University of Exeter explained that if traitors randomly selected their targets for elimination, that would represent Level 0 reasoning. Level 1 reasoning would be if Ross chose to eliminate Codd simply because she posed a threat. However, Ross”s decision to kill her despite it making him appear guilty exemplifies Level 3 reasoning. “Ross seems to have anticipated that he was up against a Level 2 thinker,” Dr. Nei stated, emphasizing the need for traitors to vary their strategies in future eliminations.
He compared this strategic decision-making to a football player taking a penalty kick, where players often have a preferred side to shoot. They must balance using their strong side while ensuring the goalkeeper does not predict their intent. Dr. Sören Henrich, a forensic psychologist at Manchester Metropolitan University, noted that as contestants engage in higher levels of reasoning, the complexity increases. “Once you move beyond Level 1, it becomes quite convoluted, as players must consider the thoughts and strategies of all their competitors,” he explained.
The ongoing dynamics of the game illustrate the intricate nature of human decision-making and social psychology. As long as the game persists, the principles of game theory will continue to be relevant. “Analyzing moves like Jonathan”s not only sheds light on individual strategies but also reveals the broader strategic context of social deduction games,” Professor Vaughan Williams added, referencing his book “Twisted Logic: Puzzles, Paradoxes, and Big Questions.”
Moreover, international adaptations of The Traitors have incorporated game theory concepts such as the “Prisoner”s Dilemma,” which explores why individuals sometimes act against their own interests. The show”s premise is rooted in classic group strategy games that revolve around identifying the “bad guy,” evolving from traditional games like Wink Murder to more complex iterations such as Mafia and Werewolf.
Dr. Douglas Brown, a researcher in game design at Falmouth University, highlighted the popularity of these group games among game theorists and developers. “Many have found employment due to their skills in games like Werewolf,” he noted. The role of “seer,” introduced in the UK version of The Traitors in its third season, allows players to temporarily discern the true nature of others, a concept borrowed from Werewolf.
As the current season unfolds, the faithful contestants may rely less on magical insights and more on psychological principles, including groupthink. If players like rugby star Joe Marler can rally others to question Ross”s tactics, his days could be numbered. “Given the scrutiny on Jonathan, I would be surprised if he manages to stay in the game much longer,” Dr. Wright concluded.
